Harry Reid (and 16 fellow Democrats - I heard Schumer and Akaka and maybe Salazar, but most of the names weren't read) filed a cloture motion on S. 2248, at about 1 p.m. ET, Friday, just before the Senate adjourned for the weekend (it will reconvene at 2 p.m. Monday for FISA amendment debate, and at about 10 a.m. Tuesday to start further FISA amendment votes).

The FISA cloture vote will take place - with only 41 Democrats needed to stop the Rockefeller Royalists - after disposition of all FISA amendments (probably on Tuesday), before Dodd's four hours of post-cloture (if any) debate. 41 Democrats can force Harry Reid to choose another approach to "fixing" FISA, in place of the unregulated free-for-all domestic spying without probable cause bill now being dictated and forced through the Senate by the arrogant, deceitful and condescending likes of Cheney, Bond & Rockefeller.

The fate of the FISA bill, and thus whether or not our Judicial Branch will be effectively eliminated, with regard to the Fourth Amendment and the due process rights of Americans, and "replaced" by the Justice Department of the Executive Branch, with the blessing of the Legislative Branch, is entirely in the hands and under the control of Harry Reid and his majority of (non-royalists) in the Senate Democratic caucus.

Reid also filed a bill Friday providing for another extension (15 days, I believe) of the Protect America Act, and asked for its first and second readings.

Steny Hoyer actually still seems to be trying to stand the House's ground, at least with regard to FISA lawbreaking immunity, per his comments on Thursday to Rep. Blunt:

Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the gentleman's confidence that the Senate is going to send us a bill, short-term, medium-term or long-term duration. We have been waiting for that for some time, obviously.

It is my understanding the Senate is going to address this bill on Tuesday. Now, if they send it to us on Tuesday, we will see what they have in the bill. There obviously will be little, if any, time for a conference. My expectation is there will be a difference between the House bill which passed here 2 1/2 months ago and the Senate bill.

As I said on the floor, when we passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill on November 15 or 16, I said at that time I was hopeful that we would pass it, that the Senate would pass it, and that we could have a conference in which the very important specifics of the bill might be discussed and differences ironed out. That has not yet occurred, unfortunately.

In addition, as I told my friend last week, we had still not gotten access to the documents that we had asked to see to indicate what, in fact, immunity was being asked for. Those documents, my friend and I had an opportunity to discuss that, I don't know whether he had any role in that, but they will now be made available [outside of the White House] as of today. As a matter of fact, I intend to take the opportunity tomorrow, much of the morning, perhaps even into the afternoon, to review those documents. Some few Members have had that opportunity already, but very few.

[snip]

I think we are all agreeing on the enforcement and interception part. It is the immunity issue that gives many concerns, and they want to look at that carefully, and I think that's fair to do. Whether or not we will be able to do that next week, frankly, I tell my friend, I am not sure.

[snip]

I don't know whether the gentleman had an opportunity to either see or hear this; but I just wanted to bring to your attention, because we do share that concern, that in testimony this morning before the Intelligence Committee, the Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, whom we work with, said that all current surveillance activity under the Protect America Act would continue even after the law expires.

[snip]

Director McConnell informed the House Intelligence Committee that the backlog that existed has been eliminated, saying we are caught up on everything at this point in time.

I think we can have a confidence level. I agree with you, we want to get this done as quickly as possible. Because I am concerned that we not have a gap, we are trying to assure ourselves, and believe we are assured that there will not be a down time for our intelligence service should we not be able to reach agreement either with the Senate or with ourselves in the time frame of next Friday.

[snip]

I want to tell my friend, though, very candidly, I think there is some sentiment that if we don't get it done that that is going to put this side of the aisle that wants to look at this bill, after the Senate passes it back to us, with whatever provisions they include in it, carefully, we understand that we are going to be portrayed as somehow undermining the security of America. We think that argument is bogus, but we do think it may well be made.

[snip]

In fact, I would suggest to my friend we could deal with the immunity issue, which looks back not at present capacity nor future capacity, and resolve that issue in a separate bill if that was the concern about going forward. I think that could be done relatively quickly. - House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, 2/7/2008

Http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2008_record&page=H793&position=all

P.S. No FISA action has yet occurred in the House Rules Committee:

http://www.rules.house.gov/